Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

Rew

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

BTW how many accidents and injuries have you seen?

MJohnston

TheExile1878 wrote: »

There alreasy is this.

It's called "the law".

Yeah, good one mate. Hows that working out for everyone at the minute?

Rather than continue with your dismissive attitude, why don't we talk about ways we can make things better and safer for everyone and not just you?

Frankly, if people like you want to insist on zero law transgressions for cyclists, then there's no reason why pedestrians should continue to be allowed to flagrantly and constantly jaywalk in every inch of the city. There's equivalence there - jaywalking is much the same as the majority of red-light breaking by cyclists, but pedestrians get a bye for what reason?

Simple - common sense tells everyone that if pedestrians are observant, alert, and courteous, they can jaywalk in 90% of cases without endangering themselves or anyone else. The idea that a similar logic cannot be applied to cyclists, I just can't understand it.

magicbastarder

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads

are you blind?
i live near DCU, so would regularly cycle up the ballymun road on spins out past the airport; i regularly count 4 or 5 cars running red lights at the main junction in the village, and similar coming out at the junction at gulliver's retail park.
i often see parked cars parked outside the garda station in ballymun at times it's supposed to be clear too...

magicbastarder

or do you perhaps not regard cars slipping through a red light seconds after it's gone red as counting?

MJohnston

magicbastarder wrote: »

or do you perhaps not regard cars slipping through a red light seconds after it's gone red as counting?

I think this is the case, perhaps it's become so common for Dubliners that we just consider it to be a natural way of life now.

RainyDay

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

You're joking, right? 4am?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

If you don't notice Irish drivers routinely breaking red lights all the time, day and night, city and towns, you're not a very observant road user.

MJohnston

RainyDay wrote: »

You're joking, right? 4am?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

If you don't notice Irish drivers routinely breaking red lights all the time, day and night, city and towns, you're not a very observant road user.

That's before you even go near the idea of 'yellow boxes'.

Grandeeod

RainyDay wrote: »

You're joking, right? 4am?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

If you don't notice Irish drivers routinely breaking red lights all the time, day and night, city and towns, you're not a very observant road user.

So whats the idea behind recording the reg of a majority of vehicles passing through an amber light?

RainyDay

Grandeeod wrote: »

So whats the idea behind recording the reg of a majority of vehicles passing through an amber light?

You should probably ask whoever recorded the video, but I guess it was something to do with the frustration arising from seeing how most drivers ignore the legal requirement to stop on amber if it is safe to do so, and treat it as 'ah sure I'll just keep going and no-one will notice'.

Rew

Grandeeod wrote: »

So whats the idea behind recording the reg of a majority of vehicles passing through an amber light?

I didn't watch that closely but an Amber light is a stop light so possibly he's counting the ones that could have stopped on the correct side of the junction Amber.

Grandeeod

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

That's how it looked to me and that's how it tends to be in heavily trafficed scenarios.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

That's how it looked to me and that's how it tends to be in heavily trafficed scenarios.

There's a massive number of people actually going through the red, never mind the amber, on that video. Lots who had plenty of safe opportunity to stop when they saw an amber too. They're not travelling at 30mph+, they're doing about 10-20kph and could easily stop within 1-2 seconds. They just don't want to. You're kidding yourself if you don't agree that this happens all over the city. It's so ****ing dangerous.

MJohnston

Deedsie wrote: »

The 30kph in urban areas campaign could help with this. If introduced, urban areas would be far safer for all users. Crazy the speed some people travel through housing estates, towns & cities etc

It'll not help with anything really, because as the video shows, drivers will still break amber/red lights even when they're barely moving. Some of them actually speed up when the lights turn amber!

Cookie_Monster

Carawaystick wrote: »

But if cars should never be on footpaths, that removes the danger of cars coming out of driveways....

cdebru wrote: »

how does the car get from the driveway to the road without being on the footpath ?

oh for goodness sake, is this the level of trolling we are descending to to try and keep you argument alive. Obviously crossings for access is a given thing and is not in question. It is in no way the same as blocking or travelling on the footpath, stop trying to insinuate it is.

How are these dangers removed when local authorities make shared use paths?
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3773198,-6.2485864,3a,75y,359.88h,77.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDekUNXJ35wEWBLckSIuM2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

they aren't and shared paths are a stupid idea IMO

ED E wrote: »

Any proof? No.
Come back when you have a real argument.

a 'real argument' such as what? Are you denying it's illegal, are you denying there are very obvious dangers cycling (at speed) on a footpath when you have very limited visibility of what's behind doors / hedges / fences etc? Are you denying cyclists put pedestrians at risk by cycling on footpaths?

Rew

Cycling on the footpath is stupid and illegal (for adults) is anyone really trying to argue for it?

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-alleged-hit-and-run-cyclist-drags-toddler-along-pavement-content-warning/
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/there-was-blood-all-down-her-face-and-she-was-screaming-uk-cyclist-fined-after-hitting-child-on-footpath-31420539.html

Carawaystick

Maybe you could explain why cycling or a footpath is stupid for a 3 year old?
Or why an adult cycling over a footpath from a cycle path to a cycle path is stupid?
Should a person cycling stop, remove their saddle(to stop their pedal cycle being a "pedal cycle" as they move a few yards over a footpath) replace their saddle and amble on?


What should a person cycling do here where the cycle lane ends at the light patch of concrete?

Charles Babbage

Carawaystick wrote: »

Should a person cycling stop, remove their saddle(to stop their pedal cycle being a "pedal cycle" as they move a few yards over a footpath) replace their saddle and amble on?

Don't be dramatic. Nobody expects anyone to remove a saddle, provided they are walking the bike there is no problem.

TheExile1878

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah, good one mate. Hows that working out for everyone at the minute?

Rather than continue with your dismissive attitude, why don't we talk about ways we can make things better and safer for everyone and not just you?

Frankly, if people like you want to insist on zero law transgressions for cyclists, then there's no reason why pedestrians should continue to be allowed to flagrantly and constantly jaywalk in every inch of the city. There's equivalence there - jaywalking is much the same as the majority of red-light breaking by cyclists, but pedestrians get a bye for what reason?

Simple - common sense tells everyone that if pedestrians are observant, alert, and courteous, they can jaywalk in 90% of cases without endangering themselves or anyone else. The idea that a similar logic cannot be applied to cyclists, I just can't understand it.

I agree with you, jaywalking should be a crime.

Talking here about zero tolerance for ALL.

Point is tho, a pedestrian breaks the law and they risk being run over, a car and they face penalties for dangerous driving - however cyclists are anonymous and in 9 years of walking in Dublin I have yet to see an apology from any of them.

2RockMountain

TheExile1878 wrote: »

I agree with you, jaywalking should be a crime.

Talking here about zero tolerance for ALL.

Point is tho, a pedestrian breaks the law and they risk being run over, a car and they face a minuscule possibility of being hit with penalties for dangerous driving - however cyclists breaks the law and they risk being run over, though they are anonymous and in 9 years of walking in Dublin I have yet to see an apology from any of them.

Fixed your post there above.

Apology? Would you like cyclists to tug their forelocks and bow down for you? You did see those reports of the 600 cyclists who have been fined under the new fixed penalty notice system, didn't you?

It's just a bit silly to treat cyclists as a homogeneous group. I haven't seen 'any apology' from motorists for all the motorists who were on the phone while driving this week. See how silly that sounds?

magicbastarder

TheExile1878 wrote: »

I agree with you, jaywalking should be a crime.

the only offence (not a crime, because none of what we're talking about in the main is considered a crime) we have in relation to pedestrians crossing roads is if they cross a road at a pedestrian light which is showing red. and if they're more than 15 metres from the crossing, it actually doesn't apply to them.

there is a more general 'pedestrians must exercise due care' law, but that is not specific to any one behaviour.

BoatMad

Oy , the mol comment was to do with the relative merits of cycle over car access policies.

Yet this has descended into a car versus bikes slagging match which does nothing to address the topic of the thread

MJohnston

BoatMad wrote: »

Oy , the mol comment was to do with the relative merits of cycle over car access policies.

Yet this has descended into a car versus bikes slagging match which does nothing to address the topic of the thread

I think that reflects the lack of merit to what MOL said. He has a very selfish, non-progressive attitude in a city that has increasingly realized that car access policies have nowhere to go but more restrictive.

Pitting cyclists against cars is just a savvy bit of MOL manoeuvring - he knows that he can easy tack on his anger to existing driver anger against cyclists. The idea that car access is being reduced in order to give space to bicycles is a real fallacy. Car access is being reduced because DCC have decided that they want to make the city centre more pleasant for pedestrians, and because it is necessary to operate a more effective Public Transport system. It's also being targeted because it is a truly inefficient method of commuting large numbers of people and it is environmentally unsound. Not to mention that cars are their own worst enemy - I don't know anyone who believes that Dublin could somehow be reconfigured to make it a driving nirvana - there's not enough room, and there are too many vehicles.

What does cycling have to do with this? Very, very little. Show me an example of where cycling provision (as weak as it has historically been in this city) has drastically affected car access?

Listen to this nonsense:

“I want to drive and I expect Dublin city to come up with a smarter way for me to get around Dublin and be able to park my car somewhere in the middle of Dublin without it being dug up every six weeks so we can some other new fabby non-sustainable public transport solution whether it’s the Luas - on the days when the Luas isn’t on strike - replacing the buses.”

Can you honestly say there's any merit in this rant of his? Not to mention uneducated rubbish like this:

In a country where it rains about 250 days a year, the way forward in Dublin is: more bicycles.

MJohnston

When even the Gardai act like this towards cyclists:

Utterly disgraceful.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

When even the Gardai act like this towards cyclists:

Utterly disgraceful.

Seriously?
Why did the cyclist feel the need to completely block the car? Ok he has every right to take a good road position but he blatantly turns around, sees the car and moves to the center of the road. If that was me driving id have issued a fine for cycling without reasonable consideration. (Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration).

Clearly the driver should not have aggressively sped toward the cyclist but this was a triggered behavior. This is a classic case of the worst cyclists out there. Mentality needs to change for both parties.

Roadhawk

Pure propaganda!!!

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Pure propaganda!!!

Think this proves that you are unable to have an objective view on cycling at all.

First of all, there's no rule or law that says that a cyclist has to allow vehicles to pass them.

Secondly, Dublin city streets are very frequently cut up, potholed, or full of intentional bumps (due to sunken drain grates) at the left hand side of the street, meaning that it is often quite unsafe for a cyclist to hug the curb as closely as most drivers seem to believe they should.

Thirdly, this driver becomes needlessly aggressive before the cyclist has done anything out of the ordinary. You'll note from the video that the first time the cyclist turns around to look at the car, it's already breaking into the outer traffic lane, and right up beside the rear of the bicycle (don't let the fish-eye lense on the GoPro fool you).

Once the driver behaves like this, I don't know how you can blame the cyclist for wanting to give himself more space in the lane to avoid the driver knocking him down in his aggressive urge to speed on down the bus lane (in a private vehicle, in a 50kph zone, but sure, grand).

What you might not be able to empathise with is the fact that, as a cyclist, you're EXTREMELY vulnerable on the roads, and when someone in a vehicle starts driving so aggressively, you are well within your rights (and I would suggest, well within the boundaries of common courtesy and sense) to protect yourself by ensuring you are a visible member of the traffic.

Tenzor07

MJohnston wrote: »

When even the Gardai act like this towards cyclists:
Utterly disgraceful.

Yea saw this earlier, the bicyclist is on a cargo bike and that section of the road is particularly narrow...

From the video it appears that the Audi, which seems to be a private vehicle, was trying to slice past the cargo bike in the bus lane, to which the rider turned around, as any of us would do, and to see what the heck was going on, and he see's a car try and bully him out of the way by flashing his lights and coming within a few feet of his bicycle...

Then a Garda I.D badge is flashed at him, which is a pure abuse of power, shame that the Garda's name and badge number weren't obtained and reported to GSOC.

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

Clearly the driver should not have aggressively sped toward the cyclist but this was a triggered behavior. This is a classic case of the worst cyclists out there. Mentality needs to change for both parties.

Where do you suggest a cargo bike rider on a cycle lane barely as wide as his bike go?
Maybe attach an inflatable raft and jump into the Liffey?

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Think this proves that you are unable to have an objective view on cycling at all.

First of all, there's no rule or law that says that a cyclist has to allow vehicles to pass them.

Secondly, Dublin city streets are very frequently cut up, potholed, or full of intentional bumps (due to sunken drain grates) at the left hand side of the street, meaning that it is often quite unsafe for a cyclist to hug the curb as closely as most drivers seem to believe they should.

Thirdly, this driver becomes needlessly aggressive before the cyclist has done anything out of the ordinary. You'll note from the video that the first time the cyclist turns around to look at the car, it's already breaking into the outer traffic lane, and right up beside the rear of the bicycle (don't let the fish-eye lense on the GoPro fool you).

Once the driver behaves like this, I don't know how you can blame the cyclist for wanting to give himself more space in the lane to avoid the driver knocking him down in his aggressive urge to speed on down the bus lane (in a private vehicle, in a 50kph zone, but sure, grand).

What you might not be able to emphasise with is the fact that, as a cyclist, you're EXTREMELY vulnerable on the roads, and when someone in a vehicle starts driving so aggressively, you are well within your rights (and I would suggest, well within the boundaries of common courtesy and sense) to protect yourself by ensuring you are a visible member of the traffic.

Your first statement kind of proves the mentality of a cyclists. Just because i can, i will. Also being well within your rights to pull in front of a car in not smart road safety. I agree that on many roads around the city cyclists cannot hug the curbs due to road conditions but this guy put himself in danger moving in front of a moving car...why would anyone want to do that? Cyclists may be among the most vulnerable road users but according to a lot of stats provided by cyclists on boards it turns out to be the safest mode of transport?

Under no circumstances would i ever condone the drivers reaction but it is a response to the behavior of the cyclist.

The car is a government emergency vehicle - not a private vehicle. (front emergency lights were on - Looks more like a escort vehicle)

Sometimes i wonder if cyclists with these Go Pros have an agenda to specifically torment motorists.

stop

Interestingly, the reg on the Audi doesn't show up on cartell/mywheels etc - I was under the impression that Garda vehicles generally do though.

Roadhawk

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Where do you suggest a cargo bike rider on a cycle lane barely as wide as his bike go?
Maybe attach an inflatable raft and jump into the Liffey?

The "cargo" cyclists is in a bus lane? how much space does he need?

There are to two wrongs here. Im not denying that, but if i walk up to somebody and slap them(Trigger) im going to get a slap back (Response). Why couldnt the cyclist show a bit more courtesy where that whole situation could have been avoided?

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

but this guy put himself in danger moving in front of a moving car...why would anyone want to do that?
Under no circumstances would i ever condone the drivers reaction but it is a response to the behavior of the cyclist.
The car is a government emergency vehicle - not a private vehicle. (front emergency lights were on - Looks more like a escort vehicle)
Sometimes i wonder if cyclists with these Go Pros have an agenda to specifically torment motorists.

He didn't put himself in front of a moving car, he WAS in front of the moving car trying to force it's way past on a narrow section of the road...
"The emergency lights were on" how's a cyclist meant to know that unless they have rear view mirrors, very dangerous for a cyclist to operate his bicycle whilst looking behind constantly!

Yea, an agenda to stay alive! Do you have the equal view of motor vehicle drivers with dashcams? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057386855

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

The car is a government emergency vehicle - not a private vehicle. (front emergency lights were on - Looks more like a escort vehicle)

Didn't look like he was responding to an 'emergency', nor escorting anyone, possibly just abusing the fact he was a garda. What he hell was he thinking by accelerating up to the back of the cyclist that time?

The garda that you're so worried about had two lanes of traffic to his right in which he could have executed a perfectly safe overtaking manoeuvre.

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

The "cargo" cyclists is in a bus lane? how much space does he need?

There are to two wrongs here. Im not denying that, but if i walk up to somebody and slap them(Trigger) im going to get a slap back (Response). Why couldnt the cyclist show a bit more courtesy where that whole situation could have been avoided?

Please, educate yourself as to the size of a cargo bike, and also on the width of that section on the quays, have you ever cycled or driven along it?

Which level of courtesy would you show to 1,500kg of metal approaching at say 40mph extremely closely to your unprotected self whilst not in the legal/correct lane?

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Your first statement kind of proves the mentality of a cyclists. Just because i can, i will.

It's nothing to do with that at all, you're making things up. I was simply restating the fact (the exact same one that you yourself stated), that cyclists are allowed to take any position within a traffic lane. I then went on to explain why a cyclist might want to adopt a position in the middle of a lane - nothing to do with "because i can", but "because I need to be safe in a very dangerous environment". Attributing it to selfishness is just bizarre.

Also being well within your rights to pull in front of a car in not smart road safety. I agree that on many roads around the city cyclists cannot hug the curbs due to road conditions but this guy put himself in danger moving in front of a moving car...why would anyone want to do that?

It's pretty obvious to be honest - if this cyclist maintains his position at the side of the road, the driver behind him will continue to try and force past him, pushing him off the street, that much is clear when he finally does try and pass (at 17 seconds in). So, if the cyclist moves into the centre of the road, he has ensured that he is safer because the driver must use the outer traffic lane to properly and safely overtake him. The idea that a driver would then try and ram the bike off the road from behind is so unlikely and extreme that it's not really worth taking into account in most cases. Unfortunately this apparent member of the Gardai was one of those extreme cases.

Cyclists may be among the most vulnerable road users but according to a lot of stats provided by cyclists on boards it turns out to be the safest mode of transport?

You are displaying a dubious understanding of statistics. Vulnerability has no relationship to the statistics of road deaths. Vulnerability might in fact ACCOUNT FOR the low amount of road deaths, because it causes cyclists to take extreme amounts of care while cycling (conversely, a low amount of vulnerability causes drivers to take extreme risks, and causes more road deaths). If you don't think a soft, squishy cyclist is more vulnerable on a road than a metal wrapped driver, I don't know what to tell you, because you've gone insane.

Under no circumstances would i ever condone the drivers reaction but it is a response to the behavior of the cyclist.

Sorry, but this is classic victim blaming.

The car is a government emergency vehicle - not a private vehicle. (front emergency lights were on - Looks more like a escort vehicle)

There are no lights on at all until after the driver attempts to accelerate up the arse of the cyclist. What you're seeing looks more like the automatic hazard warning lights coming on at 25 seconds in due to extreme braking (a feature built into most modern cars), as they're orange/yellow, and far from an emergency light. Regardless, they aren't on at all at the beginning.

Sometimes i wonder if cyclists with these Go Pros have an agenda to specifically torment motorists.

It seems like you wonder that too much, rather than wondering why it is that cyclists have to resort to filming the antics of drivers.

Weepsie

Roadhawk wrote: »

Seriously?
Why did the cyclist feel the need to completely block the car? Ok he has every right to take a good road position but he blatantly turns around, sees the car and moves to the center of the road. If that was me driving id have issued a fine for cycling without reasonable consideration. (Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration).

Clearly the driver should not have aggressively sped toward the cyclist but this was a triggered behavior. This is a classic case of the worst cyclists out there. Mentality needs to change for both parties.

I'd love if he tried to issue a fine if that was me. I'd have made sure to have his badge number, and reported it and followed it up. Cyclist did nothing wrong. Private car in a bus lane is the problem.

He has a plate, so he should report it to trafficwatch

Roadhawk

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Please, educate yourself as to the size of a cargo bike, and also on the width of that section on the quays, have you ever cycled or driven along it?

Which level of courtesy would you show to 1,500kg of metal approaching at say 40mph extremely closely to your unprotected self whilst not in the legal/correct lane?

well a cargo bike with 2 front wheels is 88cm wide so i presume the single wheeled version would not be larger. The bus lane on the quays should measure somewhere between 4m to 4.75 m wide according to the GDA (a Dublin bus is 3.1m wide). The audi A4 is 1.9m wide.

So there should be 1.22m - 1.97m of space to overtake - Given that is space between the curb and cyclists - cyclist and car - car and edge of lane. there is no law on distance required between car and cyclist but the rules of the road suggests 1.5m

DirkVoodoo

Roadhawk, your level of trolling is very poor. Over 8 years in this forum and you wouldn't even make the top 100 trolls. I can't even give you marks for trying.

If someone attacks you, what do you do? You put your arms up to defend yourself. Similarly on a bike, if someone drives aggressively and tries to squeeze past when you bloody well know they can't without clipping your or taking a very big risk of doing so, you move out and assume the lane.

Why do you assume that self preservation is simply an excuse to annoy? Granted there are people who take a bit of a delight in cycling like dicks, much like some people enjoy undertaking in bus lanes before 6, or using umbrellas as weapons on a rainy day in Grafton street. For the most part though, it's simply someone saying "I don't want to die today so you can get stuck in traffic up the road a bit quicker".

The fact that this is a Garda is wholly unacceptable. In fact, it should be made an example of. The Gardai are there to uphold the law, not flout it on a whim for their own benefit.

I hope that everyone tries to publicise this. It can't go unanswered. Tweet it, blog it, share it. Whatever, just make sure that this is not ignored by the Gardai.

Roadhawk

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Roadhawk, your level of trolling is very poor. Over 8 years in this forum and you wouldn't even make the top 100 trolls. I can't even give you marks for trying.

If someone attacks you, what do you do? You put your arms up to defend yourself. Similarly on a bike, if someone drives aggressively and tries to squeeze past when you bloody well know they can't without clipping your or taking a very big risk of doing so, you move out and assume the lane.

Why do you assume that self preservation is simply an excuse to annoy? Granted there are people who take a bit of a delight in cycling like dicks, much like some people enjoy undertaking in bus lanes before 6, or using umbrellas as weapons on a rainy day in Grafton street. For the most part though, it's simply someone saying "I don't want to die today so you can get stuck in traffic up the road a bit quicker".

The fact that this is a Garda is wholly unacceptable. In fact, it should be made an example of. The Gardai are there to uphold the law, not flout it on a whim for their own benefit.

I hope that everyone tries to publicise this. It can't go unanswered. Tweet it, blog it, share it. Whatever, just make sure that this is not ignored by the Gardai.

Wow thats a very direct approach and one way to kill the conversation. I am simply at a different opinion to you and others regarding this topic. No need to go off on a personal rant trying to provoke a nasty response from me.

I was using the "get hit/hit back" example only to show a trigger/response scenario. Similarly in the example you provided the response is to protect yourself. Same thing - Trigger/response.

I completely agree with you saying that the Gard is abusing power in the sense that he should not be using the Bus lane unless traveling to or from an incident. Even if this video went viral not much can be done. There are too many variables.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Wow thats a very direct approach and one way to kill the conversation. I am simply at a different opinion to you and others regarding this topic. No need to go off on a personal rant trying to provoke a nasty response from me.

Is this the conversation where you're unwilling to engage with points made against your own?

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Is this the conversation where you're unwilling to engage with points made against your own?

Sorry but i am the only responder to my side of the discussion. give me time im getting there. You have some good points i have to try counter

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Also being well within your rights to pull in front of a car in not smart road safety.

you're clearly not a cyclist. does the fact that so many cyclists who have been in similar situations telling you what is the safest thing to do, means absolutely nothing?

if someone is potentially going to bully their way past you in such a situation, it is safest to control the lane, as you're much safer having them behind you than you are having them alongside you.
going by your own calculations, there's barely enough room to overtake safely; and you haven't allowed space between the cyclist and kerb, or the side of the audi and the edge of the lane, in your final figure, even though you acknowledge it's necessary.
once they're alongside you, you've about three or four feet (combined) at best to allow for unexpected situations, such as detritus near the kerb, or someone changing lanes. keeping the car behind you means there's far more space for emergencies.

magicbastarder

i once had a vaguely similar experience on st martin's row in chapelizod, where a motorist was acting like a complete bully. she claimed to be a cop, so i pulled out my phone and told her i was ringing the gardai to report her for impersonation of a garda. she spun her wheels, she tried to get away so fast.

magicbastarder

anyway, how can we even be talking about overtaking as a concept when it's clear the car cannot leave his own lane?

2RockMountain

magicbastarder wrote: »

i once had a vaguely similar experience on st martin's row in chapelizod, where a motorist was acting like a complete bully. she claimed to be a cop, so i pulled out my phone and told her i was ringing the gardai to report her for impersonation of a garda. she spun her wheels, she tried to get away so fast.

I had a young lady driver in Ranalagh tell me that her boyfriend was a Garda in Donnybrook some years back. I told her I had the number for Donnybrook GS on my phone, so we could ring them on the spot and discuss her dodgy driving. She drove off.

galwaycyclist

I once got a close pass from a taxi in a bus lane near Drumcondra. His wing mirror left a wound in my right arm that bled quite badly but did not require stitches.

Lesson learned regarding leaving enough room that drivers might "think" they can get past.

cdebru

Roadhawk wrote: »

The "cargo" cyclists is in a bus lane? how much space does he need?

There are to two wrongs here. Im not denying that, but if i walk up to somebody and slap them(Trigger) im going to get a slap back (Response). Why couldnt the cyclist show a bit more courtesy where that whole situation could have been avoided?

The courtesy is not trying to squeeze past a cyclist when there is no space to do so, the cyclist was perfectly correct to make sure they protect themselves and not leave the possibility for the motorist to attempt such a dangerous manoeuvre. He knew he was wrong hence why he left so quick when whipping out the badge didn't have the desired affect of cowing the cyclist.

Cookie_Monster

Roadhawk wrote: »

Sorry but i am the only responder to my side of the discussion. give me time im getting there. You have some good points i have to try counter

do you think there might be a reason for that, like your opinion is completely incorrect and everyone but you can see reason on the topic?
Just because you have an opinion, which has been demonstrated to be completely wrong, doesn't mean we have to listen to it or take the time to make the same tired old points again and again to disprove it just because you won't listen and are too entrenched to view it for what it is.

Jawgap

2RockMountain wrote: »

I had a young lady driver in Ranalagh tell me that her boyfriend was a Garda in Donnybrook some years back. I told her I had the number for Donnybrook GS on my phone, so we could ring them on the spot and discuss her dodgy driving. She drove off.

One of my 'favourite' incidents when I was out on the bike when I was with my brother and cycling with a few of his buddies and we were overtaken in a 'very close and loud' manner by an SUV driver. One of the riders had the presence of mind to immediately ring TrafficWatch......


......Oh, and my brother is a Guard........his buddies were the Garda Cycling Club.......and the guy who phoned TrafficWatch was an inspector in the Traffic Corps :D:D

The moral of the story......be careful which bunch of cyclists you decide to misbehave towards......or at least know the colours of GCC

2RockMountain

stop wrote: »

Interestingly, the reg on the Audi doesn't show up on cartell/mywheels etc - I was under the impression that Garda vehicles generally do though.

Very interesting, and very unusual. I've checked a Garda squad car registration, and it does come up on motorcheck.ie